Prosecutor’s role in Jayalalithaa assets case comes under scrutiny

CHENNAI: Both special court judge John Michael Cunha and the Karnataka high court spoke very little about the prosecution's role in the disproportionate assets case against unseated chief minister of Tamil Nadu J Jayalalithaa and her three associates. But whatever little the two courts observed is pregnant with hints and indications that the conviction and denial of bail to Jayalalithaa and others were not because of the efforts of special public prosecutor G Bhavani Singh, but in spite of him.

Cunha dismissed Singh's contribution in one sentence saying he "merely read out the chief examination of the prosecution witnesses and summed up his arguments". The defence counsel, however, "addressed arguments for more than 80 hours, elaborately dealing with every aspect of law," the special court said in its order on September 27.

Singh's role came in for scrutiny once again on Tuesday when Justice A V Chandrashekara of the Karnataka HC said Singh initially filed "strong written objections" opposing bail to Jayalalithaa. But he told the court on Tuesday that 'conditional bail' could be given. Justice Chandrasekara concluded that irrespective of the prosecutor's views, the court was duty-bound to see whether there were adequate grounds for suspending the sentence. He finally ruled, "The question of granting bail to the accused does not arise as no grounds exist to suspend the sentence".

On October 1, when the HC's vacation judge Ratnakala took up Jayalalithaa's bail plea, Singh opposed it and filed a written submission saying there existed an "unimpeachable evidence" that established the case of the prosecution. Singh further said the state had a "very good case on merits" and hence the plea for suspension of conviction and sentence did not merit consideration. Citing the seriousness of the offence and status of the convicts, Singh said, "If the conviction and sentence is stayed, she (Jayalalithaa) may misuse the liberty and in such event, it will be difficult for prosecution to secure" her in case her appeal is dismissed at a later stage.

Singh did a complete turnaround on Tuesday, saying the sentence could be suspended and the "accused may be released on imposing conditions deemed fit" by the court. The high court pointed out that Singh did not have anything to say about his earlier written objections.

Singh, however, justified his change of stand in an online portal saying he stopped opposing bail to Jayalalithaa since her counsel had decided not to press for suspension of her sentence and conviction. What the judge did not say in as many words, but meant, was Singh was adopting two contradictory views on Jayalalithaa's bail in a matter of a week.

In March this year, special court judge Cunha imposed a fine of Rs 60,000 on Singh for repeatedly delaying his final arguments and seeking adjournments. "I do not see any justifiable reason to adjourn the matter. As the SPP has been repeatedly seeking adjournments since January 27, 2014, without justifiable cause, I am left with no option other than to impose nothing less than one day's remuneration (Rs 60,000) for each hearing as cost or to permit the accused's counsel to commence argument," Cunha had said then.

http://ift.tt/1jTsCkQ court Judge,prosecution’s role,Karnataka High Court,Jayalalithaa,Disproportionate assets case

Stay updated on the go with The Times of India’s mobile apps. Click here to download it for your device.